Talk:Pike-Pawnee Village Site/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Rcsprinter123 (talk · contribs) 22:10, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

I will be reviewing this article. My strategy is to give overall comments about the article, then go through it section by section, check all the references, and finally to check it against the Good Article criteria. I'll let the nominator know when I'm ready for their response.  Rcsprinter123    (articulate)  @ 22:10, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Overall comments
This looks like quite a strong article. It only receives around 13 views per day but is perfectly notable. The nominator has performed many significant expansions and the edit history reveals not one revertion, so it's very stable. There are many references and quite a lot of detail, illustrated with images.

Description

 * There are some measurements which should be abbreviated: foot, meter, mile and kilometer (ft, m, mi, km).
 * Why abbreviated? I used the default form of the "Convert" template, which produces full names for the primary units and abbreviations for the converted form.  Per Manual_of_Style/Dates_and_numbers, "In prose, unit names should be given in full if used only a few times..."
 * The one exception I can see is in the "Description" section, where I did a manual conversion from a very approximate "about one-fourth mile" to a similarly approximate "about one-half kilometer". Per MOS:CONVERSIONS, "Converted quantity values should use a level of precision similar to that of the source quantity value". I thought that "0.4 km" would appear too precise, since the original quarter-mile measure was fairly imprecise.  In this case, I followed the usage indicated by Manual_of_Style/Dates_and_numbers: "Units symbols are preceded by figures, not by spelled-out numbers: for example, 5 km, not five km."  Ammodramus (talk) 04:48, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

No other issues